See this book on page 405 for the beginning of a description of the
conflicts of interest and government corruption of Jeb Bush, governor of
Florida: The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty.
For the corruption caused by the Bush family in general, see the many
descriptions starting on page 397 and continuing throughout chapter 20 to page
428. "A glimpse into the business dealings of the Bush family shows that they
acquired their wealth through the intermingling of public policy and private
interests." This is Ms. Kelley's overly polite way of saying the Bush family
sells the U.S. government to whoever will pay the most.
It's crazy to say the honest President Carter is partisan. It's
really, really crazy to defend Jeb Bush.
I knew already, from reading about it for many years, that the Bush
family was heavily involved with the Saudi Arabians most disliked by Osama bin
Laden. Osama bin Laden says the Bush family's (now former) business associates are
preventing needed changes in Saudi Arabia. I knew George W. Bush's father
attended a meeting with a brother of Osama bin Laden on the day before 9/11.
I don't accept Osama bin Laden's violence; I think his ideas for the future
of Saudi Arabia are not sensible and not achievable. However, his ideas and the ideas of
many Arabs that the U.S. government is supporting corruption in Saudi Arabia seem correct.
This corruption has been encouraged by George W. Bush's father.
What I didn't remember was that Neil Bush was involved in business
with Scott Hinckley, the brother of John Hinckley, Jr., who almost killed
President Reagan. Had Reagan died, George H.W. Bush would have become
president. Scott Hinckley had "given a lot of money to the Bush family". (See page 384.)
Also, I didn't realize that the Air National Guard began drug testing for cocaine
on the same month that George W. Bush dropped out of the Guard. (Page 301.) Alcoholics
use cocaine because it helps them drink more, I'm told by an alcoholic friend.
Aside the from the known corruption, there are literally hundreds of coincidences and
associations like this where there was a Bush family involvement, and then something bad
happened to the United States. For other short descriptions of the widespread corruption,
see the reviews of 3 movies and 35 other books that say the same things as the book linked
above.
Many Americans, like the person who posted the parent comment, have a
hard time accepting that their government has become, in some ways, corrupt. There is so much
corruption that one Slashdot comment cannot even begin to describe it.
Bush and Cheney are the most arrested U.S. president and
vice-president in history. George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of
DUI and Dick Cheney twice:
Chemically, Plutonium is a heavy metal and perhaps toxic
like other heavy metals.
The problem with Plutonium is its radioactivity. A tiny, tiny amount can still
kill slowly because Plutonium emits very energetic particles, for which the human immune
system is not full prepared, and which can cause cancer.
I know the Wikipedia says that the toxicity of
Plutonium has been
exaggerated in the past. However, there are hundreds of millions of compounds,
and if there are 1,000 or 10,000 equally as poisonous as Plutonium, it is
still "one of the most poisonous substances on earth".
All of the organic compounds which the Wikipedia article on Plutonium says are very toxic break
down chemically. Plutonium, however, loses 1/2 of its strength in 24,300
years. It can be difficult or impossible to remove from the environment. The
toxicity of Plutonium includes the toxicity it has today, plus the toxicity it
will have for a thousand generations to come.
I saw this article referenced by Wikipedia: The Myth of Plutonium Toxicity. Remember,
the toxicity of Plutonium is not a "myth". What is a "myth" is that Plutonium
is uniquely toxic when dispersed by other means than exploding as a bomb.
The author, Bernard L. Cohen, offers to eat Plutonium, although he must be
aware that he will never be asked to do so because giving it to him to eat
would be illegal.
Probably the biggest area of confusion between what the news media say about
Plutonium and what Bernard L. Cohen says is that they are talking about
different expected means of dispersal. The news media often discusses the
possibility of someone exploding a bomb made of Plutonium in a populated area,
or an explosion in a Plutonium manufacturing plant or storage facility. The
toxicity of the explosion would include all the products of the explosion, of
course, many of which are quicker killers than Plutonium itself. The news
media are using the shorthand of saying that the people killed in a Plutonium
explosion are killed by Plutonium. That is true in the sense that people
understand it. People would not say the cause of death was building collapse
when an explosion of a Plutonium bomb destroyed a building. They would correctly say that the
risk came from the availability of Plutonium.
It is legitimate to say that the burning of coal kills more people than the
use of Plutonium, but that's because billions of tons of coal pollutants enter
the atmosphere. A small amount of Plutonium is safer than a huge amount of
coal, except when Plutonium is used in a bomb.
It's really difficult to cover all the issues about most subjects in a
Slashdot comment or even a news article. It's easy to find fault with
something in most articles.
Plutonium has a half-life of 24,100 years. Ten half-lives reduce radiation by a factor of 2 to the 10th, which is 1024. Reducing the radiation of Plutonium by a factor of 1,000 is not enough to make it safe. In 241,000 years, the Plutonium will still be one of the most poisonous substances on earth.
"Now we are bringing freedom and terrorists are bringing
instability."
First, saying we is incorrect. The U.S. government would kill
you if you got in its way. You are not part of any group that includes those
U.S. government leaders who want violence.
Second, when Bush invaded an oil-rich Arab country on a pretext,
particularly one not connected with al Qaeda, it was a very strong
advertisement that brought more "terrorists", not less. ("Terrorists" are
those who engage in war, but don't own airplanes.)
In fact, in the 24
times the U.S. government has bombed other countries since the Second
World War, all have resulted in more instability and killing, not less.
Violence does not bring democracy. It brings more violence. I did a survey of
the literature, and found that some people say the U.S. government was
responsible for the deaths of perhaps 2,000,000 in Cambodia. The information
given was credible to me. The U.S. government's bombing killed about 150,000
people directly. The destabilization caused the deaths of the rest. The
2,000,000 Cambodians died, but it is not possible to assign blame with accuracy.
The government leaders who say that they will bring democracy to the Middle
East with violence are lying; they definitely know that is not historically
likely. They are only taking advantage of the ignorance of U.S. citizens, and they know it.
Do you know a good domain registrar? The first step is to find a good
registrar. The second step is to solve the domain registration info problem.
My experience with GoDaddy is that the company is very abusive.
GoDaddy is always trying to sell something else; there are such a huge number
of ads that it interferes with proper operation of their web site. Many of the
ads seem to me to try to take advantage of people who don't know much about
the Internet.
The GoDaddy web site is, in my opinion, amateurish. There are issues
like having a password field with 13 spaces, but actually accepting only 11
characters for a password. (I don't know if they have fixed that since I
mentioned it to them.)
It's simply outrageous that a company says they can change the terms
of a contract with you without your permission, or even knowing. Legally, that
cannot be a contract. A contract only exists if you agree to the terms. You
cannot enter into a contract that is so broad that you agree to be bound by
any terms in the future.
It's amazing how abusive companies are becoming. They seem to be
trying to see who can be the most abusive. Have a look at an Ed Foster column
that says that the problem is less in Europe: Anti-Sneakwrap
Law is UnAmerican.
I knew a three-year-old who once told me: 1) I can do anything I
want. 2) You have no control. This is understandable in a three-year-old, who
is merely testing the limits. I don't accept it coming from anyone who is
older.
Things are really bad in the U.S. now, it seems. Everything to help
powerful people get richer. Nothing to take care of the average person.
There are a lot of people, on TV and on the Internet, who overanalyze the
details of politics, and show no interest in the big issues.
For an example of one of the big issues, consider this: The U.S. government is
borrowing money to kill Iraqis.
Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. government is killing and
destabilizing, and U.S. taxpayers are supporting the violence. Do you consider
that an improvement?
The violence helps rich people like the Bush
family and Dick
Cheney's friends to profit. (The Bush family says they have sold their
interest in Carlyle Group, and they no longer are connected. However, the
company is privately held, and there is no way of verifying statements made
about ownership.)
A lot of the problems in the U.S. seem to be connected with karma. Make
trouble in the world, and your own quality of life will go down.
Those are big issues that are not sufficiently discussed. If they were
discussed, many of the complicated projections being made now would be
worthless. The U.S. government's system of violence depends on ignorance.
Those who discuss politics while avoiding the big issues become part of the
system of violence.
--
Bush's education improvements were partly fraud
You reap what you sow?
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: -1, Troll
"A recession is when someone you know is out of work.
A depression is when you are out of work."
Is this, then, official U.S. government policy, and the law of the land? Can anyone who doesn't like his neighbor and thinks his neighbor may become a threat in the future solve his problem by killing the neighbor?
Or, is this just the typical thinking of dry drunks?
"A Kerry presidency will leave us drifting and crippled for four years
at a time when we could ill afford it."
The president does not run the country directly. The White House staff numbers
about 5,500, for example. A president assures that the government follows the
needs of the people. A president guards against corruption. I think Kerry is
an honest and decent person. I think very few decent people know what to do
when they are being constantly attacked. Kerry has been in the Senate for 20
years, as I remember. If there were something seriously wrong with him, I
think the voters would have noticed it by now.
On the other hand, Bush and Cheney are the most secretive president and vice
president in U.S. history. For example, read Worse
Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, a very
well-written book by a man who is definitely in a position to understand corruption at
the top. It is possible to read enough to get an understanding of the secrecy
while reading the book in a bookstore.
Bush and Cheney are the president and vice-president most affected by conflict
of interest in U.S. history.
The U.S. government's war with Iraq is an example of "drifting and crippled".
Both Bush and Cheney and friends and family benefit from situations where
there are more weapons contracts, as the 3 movies and 35 books reviewed the
article Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of
interest in the U.S. government discuss. The Iraq war has made enemies of
tens of millions of moderate Arabs and Muslims. Before, Saddam was killing his people.
Now, the U.S. government is killing Iraqis, and destabilizing the government. Is that
and improvement? Should Iraqis be proud that they are being killed by the U.S.
government? A lot of foggy-minded people in the U.S. seem to think that.
--
Bush's education improvements were partly fraud
It's just ridiculous that someone defends Bush. Anyone who wants to take
the time can show that the problems are far, far worse than a Slashdot comment
can possibly say. Check Google for
Bush idiot Canada
Carolyn Parrish did not call Bush an idiot, apparently. She said Americans were
a "coalition of idiots". And she is not sorry.
I guess that seemed like strong language to you. No, it is weak language. Look
at the other links:
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien called Bush a "buffoon". Is
that high enough in the Canadian government for you?
Jodine Chase, a media adviser to Ralph Klein's Alberta government
apologized for referring to the US President as "that idiot" in
a memo. According to the article, there is a new government policy in Canada:
"These words cannot be used in reference to President Bush:
-moron
-idiot
-wanker
-idiot
-wanker
-dufus
-President of dumb
-Leader of the stupids
-that guy with Dick Cheney
-Commander-in-Comma"
Also see this in the same article: Francoise Ducros has resigned as Prime Minister Jean Chretien's
director of communications after the media reported on a private conversation
in which she called U.S. President George W. Bush a "moron."
Sorry, I don't have time to continue with the words the German and French
government leaders use for Bush.
Call an AA chapter. Ask someone there if it's true that "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic".
Few Americans realize how really, really bad the present administration is. U.S. media writers are
afraid they will lose their jobs. Those from other countries can tell the truth about what they see.
Most people in the U.S. know little of the activities of their government. The U.S. government has bombed
24
countries since World War 2. The system of violence works by creating
fear in U.S. citizens so richpeople
can profit. The problem happens largely because the U.S. government has a
break-the-law department called the CIA. Secret government cannot be not democratic. How can you know what you are voting for, if you are not allowed to know what the government did?
The problem is with secret actions, not with secret information gathering.
Quote from the article : "But why does the foreign policy establishment want Bush
-- a man regarded by most educated Indians with a mixture of hostility and a
derision that borders on contempt -- back in the White House?"
Outside of the U.S., Bush and Cheney are the most disliked U.S.
president and vice-president in history. A Canadian government leader called
Bush an "idiot".
Bush and Cheney are also the most arrested U.S. president and
vice-president in history. George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of
DUI and Dick Cheney twice:
Many Americans have a hard time accepting that their government has
become, in some ways, corrupt.
The U.S. has a difficult time getting good people to run for
president:
For example, engaging in inappropriate sex is one of the
characteristics of ACOAs, Adult Children of Alcoholics. Former U.S. president
Bill Clinton was not an alcoholic, but his parents were violent alcoholics. The book,
The
Dysfunctional President: Inside the Mind of Bill Clinton, discusses the
fact that Bill Clinton's misuse of sexuality is typical of the children of
alcoholism-influenced families. The behavior of such children is so typical
that every U.S. city has ACOA support groups.
Clinton has a strong interest in government and government policy. He
at least has the knowledge to make informed decisions.
"Slashdot's increasingly left-leaning story postings..."
People who work with computers have to think carefully and logically, or they won't be successful. There is nothing illogical about being Republican, but George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are the most secretive and corrupt administration in U.S. history, or at least in the last 100 years. They are Re-money-cans, not Republicans. Someone observant enough and able to think clearly enough to do computer work is usually able to see that.
This means that you must pay more money, and if for some reason you
don't jump through the right hoop at exactly the right time, you cannot have
the support at any price.
What does declared product death mean for Windows XP Home? No
support of any kind. Microsoft has declared the death of a product most
home users will not want to "upgrade" in only two years two months. That's why I say Mr. Bill Gates is
the world's most well-known mortician.
XP Pro has been VERY buggy for us. It has not been as bad as Windows
ME, but it has been very expensive because it needs updating every month,
usually, and because Microsoft has not been willing to fix bugs, even though
they have been reported to Microsoft Technical Support CPR (Critical Path Response). For example, Windows XP problems: Port
Re-direction.
So, even if you accept the idea that the hundreds of fixes in Service Pack 2,
some of them not documented, bring Windows XP to an acceptably buggy state,
then we will get only 2 years and 2 months of full support, after being dragged over
the coals because of Microsoft's incredible lack of caring and incredible
sloppiness in programming.
I find this disgusting, and we are already planning to move our products to Linux.
People in the U.S. seem to fall into two broad groups: Those who know
when they are being abused, and those who give excuses for abuse no matter how
extreme it is. This has consequences far more extreme than allowing
Microsoft's abusive behavior. For example, for half of U.S. citizens see
nothing wrong with these examples of U.S. government corruption:
I find that disgusting. They are still patching Windows XP like mad. By the time Win XP is stable (maybe when SP3 is released) there will be only a year or so until Microsoft declares it dead. Mr. Bill Gates is the world's leading software mortician.
The AC of the parent comment must be a Republican. "I won't believe Microsoft is being abusive until I see the exact wording I am looking for."
It's just more of the Republican mindset: "I won't believe the U.S. government is extremely corrupt unless you use exactly the right words to tell me." And, "Michael Moore expresses some things badly, so I will ignore all the problems he shows."
"The most ridiculous part is that EVERYBODY WILL... FALL FOR IT AGAIN."
Exactly right: The U.S. government has bombed
24
countries since World War 2. The system of violence works by creating fear in U.S. citizens so richpeople
can profit. The problem happens largely because the U.S. government has a break-the-law department called the CIA. Secret government is not democratic.
This is the 55th serious vulnerability in IE found in two years. I've often wondered: Are Microsoft programmers that sloppy, or were the bugs put there to help with U.S. government surveillance? Why did the U.S. Department of Justice let Microsoft off so easily for its anti-trust violations?
I think there is a need for another data point in this research. What about doing testing in a more viscous fluid? I'm sure that there are a considerable number of Slashdot readers that would like to do research on the very important question of whether Natalie Portman could swim faster in hot grits.
How can a moderator say the parent comment is off topic when so many Slashdotters would like to be on this topic? More philosophically, how can Natalie Portman be off topic? If she is off topic, that is evidence the topic needs changing, right?
Of course, this would all be for the advancement of science. No really.
Slashdot Mirror
See this book on page 405 for the beginning of a description of the conflicts of interest and government corruption of Jeb Bush, governor of Florida: The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty.
For the corruption caused by the Bush family in general, see the many descriptions starting on page 397 and continuing throughout chapter 20 to page 428. "A glimpse into the business dealings of the Bush family shows that they acquired their wealth through the intermingling of public policy and private interests." This is Ms. Kelley's overly polite way of saying the Bush family sells the U.S. government to whoever will pay the most.
It's crazy to say the honest President Carter is partisan. It's really, really crazy to defend Jeb Bush.
I knew already, from reading about it for many years, that the Bush family was heavily involved with the Saudi Arabians most disliked by Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden says the Bush family's (now former) business associates are preventing needed changes in Saudi Arabia. I knew George W. Bush's father attended a meeting with a brother of Osama bin Laden on the day before 9/11. I don't accept Osama bin Laden's violence; I think his ideas for the future of Saudi Arabia are not sensible and not achievable. However, his ideas and the ideas of many Arabs that the U.S. government is supporting corruption in Saudi Arabia seem correct. This corruption has been encouraged by George W. Bush's father.
What I didn't remember was that Neil Bush was involved in business with Scott Hinckley, the brother of John Hinckley, Jr., who almost killed President Reagan. Had Reagan died, George H.W. Bush would have become president. Scott Hinckley had "given a lot of money to the Bush family". (See page 384.)
Also, I didn't realize that the Air National Guard began drug testing for cocaine on the same month that George W. Bush dropped out of the Guard. (Page 301.) Alcoholics use cocaine because it helps them drink more, I'm told by an alcoholic friend.
Aside the from the known corruption, there are literally hundreds of coincidences and associations like this where there was a Bush family involvement, and then something bad happened to the United States. For other short descriptions of the widespread corruption, see the reviews of 3 movies and 35 other books that say the same things as the book linked above.
Many Americans, like the person who posted the parent comment, have a hard time accepting that their government has become, in some ways, corrupt. There is so much corruption that one Slashdot comment cannot even begin to describe it.
Bush and Cheney are the most arrested U.S. president and vice-president in history. George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of DUI and Dick Cheney twice:
George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest
George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest
George W. Bush was arrested 2 other times in his life, also.
Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest
Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest
The corruption is exactly what you would expect with dry drunks in charge. (It is more polite to call them "non-drinking alcholics".)
Other Bush family members have been arrested also. How does your family compare to the Bush family?
--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.
Chemically, Plutonium is a heavy metal and perhaps toxic like other heavy metals.
The problem with Plutonium is its radioactivity. A tiny, tiny amount can still kill slowly because Plutonium emits very energetic particles, for which the human immune system is not full prepared, and which can cause cancer.
I know the Wikipedia says that the toxicity of Plutonium has been exaggerated in the past. However, there are hundreds of millions of compounds, and if there are 1,000 or 10,000 equally as poisonous as Plutonium, it is still "one of the most poisonous substances on earth".
All of the organic compounds which the Wikipedia article on Plutonium says are very toxic break down chemically. Plutonium, however, loses 1/2 of its strength in 24,300 years. It can be difficult or impossible to remove from the environment. The toxicity of Plutonium includes the toxicity it has today, plus the toxicity it will have for a thousand generations to come.
I saw this article referenced by Wikipedia: The Myth of Plutonium Toxicity. Remember, the toxicity of Plutonium is not a "myth". What is a "myth" is that Plutonium is uniquely toxic when dispersed by other means than exploding as a bomb.
The author, Bernard L. Cohen, offers to eat Plutonium, although he must be aware that he will never be asked to do so because giving it to him to eat would be illegal.
Probably the biggest area of confusion between what the news media say about Plutonium and what Bernard L. Cohen says is that they are talking about different expected means of dispersal. The news media often discusses the possibility of someone exploding a bomb made of Plutonium in a populated area, or an explosion in a Plutonium manufacturing plant or storage facility. The toxicity of the explosion would include all the products of the explosion, of course, many of which are quicker killers than Plutonium itself. The news media are using the shorthand of saying that the people killed in a Plutonium explosion are killed by Plutonium. That is true in the sense that people understand it. People would not say the cause of death was building collapse when an explosion of a Plutonium bomb destroyed a building. They would correctly say that the risk came from the availability of Plutonium.
It is legitimate to say that the burning of coal kills more people than the use of Plutonium, but that's because billions of tons of coal pollutants enter the atmosphere. A small amount of Plutonium is safer than a huge amount of coal, except when Plutonium is used in a bomb.
It's really difficult to cover all the issues about most subjects in a Slashdot comment or even a news article. It's easy to find fault with something in most articles.
--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.
Plutonium has a half-life of 24,100 years. Ten half-lives reduce radiation by a factor of 2 to the 10th, which is 1024. Reducing the radiation of Plutonium by a factor of 1,000 is not enough to make it safe. In 241,000 years, the Plutonium will still be one of the most poisonous substances on earth.
--
U.S. Gov.: Borrowing money to kill Iraqis. Feel safe?
The head of the ultrasonics research group at Battelle Institute told me about the plans for "glassification" in 1975.
Is it really true this time?
--
Bush: Borrowing money to give to the rich.
"Now we are bringing freedom and terrorists are bringing instability."
First, saying we is incorrect. The U.S. government would kill you if you got in its way. You are not part of any group that includes those U.S. government leaders who want violence.
Second, when Bush invaded an oil-rich Arab country on a pretext, particularly one not connected with al Qaeda, it was a very strong advertisement that brought more "terrorists", not less. ("Terrorists" are those who engage in war, but don't own airplanes.)
In fact, in the 24 times the U.S. government has bombed other countries since the Second World War, all have resulted in more instability and killing, not less.
Violence does not bring democracy. It brings more violence. I did a survey of the literature, and found that some people say the U.S. government was responsible for the deaths of perhaps 2,000,000 in Cambodia. The information given was credible to me. The U.S. government's bombing killed about 150,000 people directly. The destabilization caused the deaths of the rest. The 2,000,000 Cambodians died, but it is not possible to assign blame with accuracy.
The government leaders who say that they will bring democracy to the Middle East with violence are lying; they definitely know that is not historically likely. They are only taking advantage of the ignorance of U.S. citizens, and they know it.
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
Do you know a good domain registrar? The first step is to find a good registrar. The second step is to solve the domain registration info problem.
My experience with GoDaddy is that the company is very abusive. GoDaddy is always trying to sell something else; there are such a huge number of ads that it interferes with proper operation of their web site. Many of the ads seem to me to try to take advantage of people who don't know much about the Internet.
The GoDaddy web site is, in my opinion, amateurish. There are issues like having a password field with 13 spaces, but actually accepting only 11 characters for a password. (I don't know if they have fixed that since I mentioned it to them.)
It's simply outrageous that a company says they can change the terms of a contract with you without your permission, or even knowing. Legally, that cannot be a contract. A contract only exists if you agree to the terms. You cannot enter into a contract that is so broad that you agree to be bound by any terms in the future.
It's amazing how abusive companies are becoming. They seem to be trying to see who can be the most abusive. Have a look at an Ed Foster column that says that the problem is less in Europe: Anti-Sneakwrap Law is UnAmerican.
I knew a three-year-old who once told me: 1) I can do anything I want. 2) You have no control. This is understandable in a three-year-old, who is merely testing the limits. I don't accept it coming from anyone who is older.
Things are really bad in the U.S. now, it seems. Everything to help powerful people get richer. Nothing to take care of the average person.
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
There are a lot of people, on TV and on the Internet, who overanalyze the details of politics, and show no interest in the big issues.
For an example of one of the big issues, consider this: The U.S. government is borrowing money to kill Iraqis.
Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. government is killing and destabilizing, and U.S. taxpayers are supporting the violence. Do you consider that an improvement?
The violence helps rich people like the Bush family and Dick Cheney's friends to profit. (The Bush family says they have sold their interest in Carlyle Group, and they no longer are connected. However, the company is privately held, and there is no way of verifying statements made about ownership.)
A lot of the problems in the U.S. seem to be connected with karma. Make trouble in the world, and your own quality of life will go down.
Those are big issues that are not sufficiently discussed. If they were discussed, many of the complicated projections being made now would be worthless. The U.S. government's system of violence depends on ignorance. Those who discuss politics while avoiding the big issues become part of the system of violence.
--
Bush's education improvements were partly fraud
"A recession is when someone you know is out of work.
A depression is when you are out of work."
And a disaster is when all that is happening and the government is borrowing money to kill Iraqis.
Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. government is killing and destabilizing, and you pay. Improvement?
It's karma. Make trouble in the world, and your own quality of life will go down.
Is this, then, official U.S. government policy, and the law of the land? Can anyone who doesn't like his neighbor and thinks his neighbor may become a threat in the future solve his problem by killing the neighbor?
Or, is this just the typical thinking of dry drunks?
--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.
Just yesterday I asked someone whose user name is GOD ALMIGHTY, who said God is against Bush: Since you are here, would you answer this? (#10337626)
--
Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. Gov. is killing and destabilizing, and you pay. Improvement?
"A Kerry presidency will leave us drifting and crippled for four years at a time when we could ill afford it."
The president does not run the country directly. The White House staff numbers about 5,500, for example. A president assures that the government follows the needs of the people. A president guards against corruption. I think Kerry is an honest and decent person. I think very few decent people know what to do when they are being constantly attacked. Kerry has been in the Senate for 20 years, as I remember. If there were something seriously wrong with him, I think the voters would have noticed it by now.
On the other hand, Bush and Cheney are the most secretive president and vice president in U.S. history. For example, read Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, a very well-written book by a man who is definitely in a position to understand corruption at the top. It is possible to read enough to get an understanding of the secrecy while reading the book in a bookstore.
Bush and Cheney are the president and vice-president most affected by conflict of interest in U.S. history.
The U.S. government's war with Iraq is an example of "drifting and crippled". Both Bush and Cheney and friends and family benefit from situations where there are more weapons contracts, as the 3 movies and 35 books reviewed the article Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government discuss. The Iraq war has made enemies of tens of millions of moderate Arabs and Muslims. Before, Saddam was killing his people. Now, the U.S. government is killing Iraqis, and destabilizing the government. Is that and improvement? Should Iraqis be proud that they are being killed by the U.S. government? A lot of foggy-minded people in the U.S. seem to think that.
--
Bush's education improvements were partly fraud
I notice that your username is GOD ALMIGHTY. You are exactly the being I wanted to ask: Is it really true that God is against Bush?
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
Could you explain?
It's just ridiculous that someone defends Bush. Anyone who wants to take the time can show that the problems are far, far worse than a Slashdot comment can possibly say. Check Google for Bush idiot Canada
Carolyn Parrish did not call Bush an idiot, apparently. She said Americans were a "coalition of idiots". And she is not sorry.
I guess that seemed like strong language to you. No, it is weak language. Look at the other links:
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien called Bush a "buffoon". Is that high enough in the Canadian government for you?
Jodine Chase, a media adviser to Ralph Klein's Alberta government apologized for referring to the US President as "that idiot" in a memo. According to the article, there is a new government policy in Canada: "These words cannot be used in reference to President Bush:
-moron
-idiot
-wanker
-idiot
-wanker
-dufus
-President of dumb
-Leader of the stupids
-that guy with Dick Cheney
-Commander-in-Comma"
Also see this in the same article: Francoise Ducros has resigned as Prime Minister Jean Chretien's director of communications after the media reported on a private conversation in which she called U.S. President George W. Bush a "moron."
Sorry, I don't have time to continue with the words the German and French government leaders use for Bush.
Call an AA chapter. Ask someone there if it's true that "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic".
Few Americans realize how really, really bad the present administration is. U.S. media writers are afraid they will lose their jobs. Those from other countries can tell the truth about what they see.
Ask someone at AA if alcoholics are abusive, as the Prime Minister of Canada said. See this: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration. Check the list of points 1 to 13.
MOD PARENT UP!!!
Most people in the U.S. know little of the activities of their government. The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since World War 2. The system of violence works by creating fear in U.S. citizens so rich people can profit. The problem happens largely because the U.S. government has a break-the-law department called the CIA. Secret government cannot be not democratic. How can you know what you are voting for, if you are not allowed to know what the government did?
The problem is with secret actions, not with secret information gathering.
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
Quote from the article : "But why does the foreign policy establishment want Bush -- a man regarded by most educated Indians with a mixture of hostility and a derision that borders on contempt -- back in the White House?"
Outside of the U.S., Bush and Cheney are the most disliked U.S. president and vice-president in history. A Canadian government leader called Bush an "idiot".
Bush and Cheney are also the most arrested U.S. president and vice-president in history. George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of DUI and Dick Cheney twice:
George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest
George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest
George W. Bush was arrested 2 other times in his life, also.
Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest
Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest
Many Americans have a hard time accepting that their government has become, in some ways, corrupt.
The U.S. has a difficult time getting good people to run for president:
For example, engaging in inappropriate sex is one of the characteristics of ACOAs, Adult Children of Alcoholics. Former U.S. president Bill Clinton was not an alcoholic, but his parents were violent alcoholics. The book, The Dysfunctional President: Inside the Mind of Bill Clinton, discusses the fact that Bill Clinton's misuse of sexuality is typical of the children of alcoholism-influenced families. The behavior of such children is so typical that every U.S. city has ACOA support groups.
Clinton has a strong interest in government and government policy. He at least has the knowledge to make informed decisions.
Bush, however, is a recovered alcoholic, and acts exactly the way recovered alcoholics usually act: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration.. See points 1 through 13. Bush has never shown a strong interest in government and government policy.
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
"Slashdot's increasingly left-leaning story postings..."
People who work with computers have to think carefully and logically, or they won't be successful. There is nothing illogical about being Republican, but George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are the most secretive and corrupt administration in U.S. history, or at least in the last 100 years. They are Re-money-cans, not Republicans. Someone observant enough and able to think clearly enough to do computer work is usually able to see that.
Republicans, Democrats, generals, former government leaders, a Pulitzer Prize winner, political commentators, editorial writers, environmental organizations, and members of the public tell the story: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
Product Lifecycle Dates says, "Windows XP Professional Mainstream Support Retired: 31-Dec-2006". [2 years and 2 months from today]
What does that mean, "Mainstream Support Retired"? Here's what it means for Windows XP Professional:
Microsoft's Support Lifecycle Support Policy FAQ: Non-security hotfix support -- Requires extended hotfix agreement, purchased within 90 days of mainstream support ending.
This means that you must pay more money, and if for some reason you don't jump through the right hoop at exactly the right time, you cannot have the support at any price.
What does declared product death mean for Windows XP Home? No support of any kind. Microsoft has declared the death of a product most home users will not want to "upgrade" in only two years two months. That's why I say Mr. Bill Gates is the world's most well-known mortician.
XP Pro has been VERY buggy for us. It has not been as bad as Windows ME, but it has been very expensive because it needs updating every month, usually, and because Microsoft has not been willing to fix bugs, even though they have been reported to Microsoft Technical Support CPR (Critical Path Response). For example, Windows XP problems: Port Re-direction.
So, even if you accept the idea that the hundreds of fixes in Service Pack 2, some of them not documented, bring Windows XP to an acceptably buggy state, then we will get only 2 years and 2 months of full support, after being dragged over the coals because of Microsoft's incredible lack of caring and incredible sloppiness in programming.
I find this disgusting, and we are already planning to move our products to Linux.
People in the U.S. seem to fall into two broad groups: Those who know when they are being abused, and those who give excuses for abuse no matter how extreme it is. This has consequences far more extreme than allowing Microsoft's abusive behavior. For example, for half of U.S. citizens see nothing wrong with these examples of U.S. government corruption:
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.
Bush's education improvements were partly fraud
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
I find that disgusting. They are still patching Windows XP like mad. By the time Win XP is stable (maybe when SP3 is released) there will be only a year or so until Microsoft declares it dead. Mr. Bill Gates is the world's leading software mortician.
--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.
That should be, "Nobody will ever need more than 640,000 patches."
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
The AC of the parent comment must be a Republican. "I won't believe Microsoft is being abusive until I see the exact wording I am looking for."
It's just more of the Republican mindset: "I won't believe the U.S. government is extremely corrupt unless you use exactly the right words to tell me." And, "Michael Moore expresses some things badly, so I will ignore all the problems he shows."
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
"The most ridiculous part is that EVERYBODY WILL
Exactly right: The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since World War 2. The system of violence works by creating fear in U.S. citizens so rich people can profit. The problem happens largely because the U.S. government has a break-the-law department called the CIA. Secret government is not democratic.
This is the 55th serious vulnerability in IE found in two years. I've often wondered: Are Microsoft programmers that sloppy, or were the bugs put there to help with U.S. government surveillance? Why did the U.S. Department of Justice let Microsoft off so easily for its anti-trust violations?
Remember that the space in the line above was put there by Slashdot software.
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
Would you hire a teenager?
If you did hire a teenager, would you only hire a teenager who had never done something stupid?
If you would never hire a teenager who had done something stupid, would you only hire adults who had never done something stupid as a teenager?
Teenagers are people trying to learn how to be adults. They make mistakes.
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
I think there is a need for another data point in this research. What about doing testing in a more viscous fluid? I'm sure that there are a considerable number of Slashdot readers that would like to do research on the very important question of whether Natalie Portman could swim faster in hot grits.
How can a moderator say the parent comment is off topic when so many Slashdotters would like to be on this topic? More philosophically, how can Natalie Portman be off topic? If she is off topic, that is evidence the topic needs changing, right?
Of course, this would all be for the advancement of science. No really.
--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.